You shall not ban —

Last Android vendor fighting Microsoft avoids sales ban

Google-owned Motorola did not infringe radio patent, German court says.

Google’s Motorola Mobility subsidiary today won a ruling in a German court that its phones do not infringe a Microsoft patent. Although Motorola has lost other cases involving different patents to Microsoft, the win is good news for Google as it tries to avoid paying Microsoft for the right to license its patents.

Microsoft has struck patent licensing deals with virtually every major Android hardware maker except Motorola. The two companies have sued each other over patents in multiple countries including the US and Germany.

According to the IDG News Service, Microsoft was denied another sales ban on Motorola products when a regional court in Mannheim ruled that Motorola did not infringe a “patent that describes a radio interface layer that provides a level of abstraction between the radio and software on a cell phone.” The patent “allows applications on the phone to access the phonebook entries, restrict access to data and access file and message storage among many other functions.”

In the US, Microsoft has already won an import ban on some Motorola Android devices, and previously won injunctions against Motorola in Germany for patents related to SMS, the FAT file system, and a method of handling communication between a keyboard and an application, the IDG News Service noted.

Motorola, which is facing steep job cuts at the hands of its new owner, has demanded that Microsoft pay patent licensing fees for sales of Windows PCs and Xbox 360 consoles.

Microsoft put a positive spin on its loss today. “This decision does not impact multiple injunctions Microsoft has already been awarded and has enforced against Motorola products in Germany," Microsoft said in a statement e-mailed to news outlets. "It remains that Motorola is broadly infringing Microsoft's intellectual property, and we hope it will join the vast majority of Android device makers by licensing Microsoft's patents."

Promoted Comments

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest. Any acceptance of cross-licenses reenforces this broken system, as does large players (Microsoft, Apple) partaking in such petty activities.Its ironic that the very laws put in place to encourage innovation and benefit society are actually doing harm.This is a great time to contact your political representative to tell them that patents are broken, harmful to society and innovation!

In the end we - consumers will end up paying a little bit, (or a lot! ) more for every device that gets sold. Extra markup to Microsoft for mobile phones, markup to Google for PC's, markup to Apple for rounded squares, markup to patenttroll for breathing air.

Am I the only one saddened by the fact that to realistically understand what is going on the tech world today, you should educate yourself on patent law/copyright/trademark law? Used to be you just had to know computers and tech, now you have to be able to understand the law too.

It's quite obvious that there are no "good guys" in all of these patent wars. There is NO WAY to keep from infringing any type of software patents at this time. But how can you get through to the idiots of the world that you should not be able to patent an idea or a thought. If a product comes from that thought than that's one thing, but that's as far as it should go. Hell, instead of innovation you're gonna have people looking over their shoulder worrying about stepping on someones toes and then getting sued. IP has no place if the future. All it will lead to is monopolies of all the major technological companies on this planet. Maybe it's time to start investing in alien technology.

So another patent on a radio api interface? Whatever. They got a ban on a method to combine 2 txt messages over the 160 char limit, so surprised they actually didn't get a ban on a patent with 162 pages verses that one which was around like 5.

Just browsed the patent, it looks like they actually listed all the actual api calls or programming aspect of it. Weird.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

I'm entirely for all these lawsuits, under the hopes that the more visibly broken the system is then the sooner it will be removed/fixed. I can't speak for everyone who's decrying the patent wars, but personally I don't care that the companies are suing each other, only that existing law brought us to this point.

If the companies simply cross-license, then the cost still just gets passed to the consumers and new companies are more quietly denied the opportunity to compete (since they may well not have a patent to cross-license, so those who do simply deny them entry).

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

Oh of course it's very easy to cross-license everyone's so called "intellectual property" and thus you keep passing on the extra cost to the consumer. Where does it end? It doesn't end and I don't understand why people can't see that. There is nothing the consumer can do about it except to pay the over inflated prices brought about by the CROSS LICENSING. Stick it to the man? Bullshit. I'm pretty sure that "the man" doesn't really care about us as long as the cash flow is there.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

The problem lies in what are those patents worth in the eyes of the owners.

Company A might think their 10 patents is worth more than Company B's 20 patents and offer to cross-licence plus a small fee to justify the "higher value" of their 10 patents etc.

They can't agree on it...and bang we have a lawsuit. Just a guess by me.

Glad to see at least some manufacturers aren't playing along and paying for Microsoft's useless patents. More manufacturers should take their lead instead of obediently paying the "protection tax" just because Microsoft asked them to.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

Yes. We should make sure the world safe for a technology oligopoly that will be able to use its patent portfolios to shut out any new blood.

Motorola certainly isn't new; but what they're doing helps keep the market open. The current IP regime will simply foment stagnation in the tech industry. Any potential new player can be shut out due to their lack of patent portfolio.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

The problem lies in what are those patents worth in the eyes of the owners.

Company A might think their 10 patents is worth more than Company B's 20 patents and offer to cross-licence plus a small fee to justify the "higher value" of their 10 patents etc.

They can't agree on it...and bang we have a lawsuit. Just a guess by me.

Seems like a pretty good guess. I would also wager that there is no fair market value in any cross-licensed patent according to the company who thinks they own these so called IP patents. Then again like I stated before they will just pass the cost on to the consumer. Without reform we, the consumers, are in a no win situation.

I can understand the "stick it to the man" mentality that Google/Motorola might have here, trying to avoid paying licensing fees for patents they feel are invalid. However, for those of us who decry the "patent wars", this is the only reasonable solution in the current environment. Rather than suing each other across five different continents, these companies each cross-license their respective patents. No lawsuits, no sales bans, no injunctions - customers can still buy the products they want, and businesses still get compensated for their intellectual property.

Cross-licensing doesn't do ANYTHING to help the issue: invalid patents are being granted on non-statutory subject matter, directly inhibiting innovation and progress, in violation of the constitutional justification for patent and copyright protection. The only solution is to fix the broken system, namely enforce the real law, not what patent lawyers reinvent and teach sheep to think is the way things work (how many times do we see people talking about "they have to make money from it!" when that argument is not supported by any law or the constitution, and was shot down in Feist v Rural, amongst others.)

Your solution won't do anything but exacerbate the very problem we're seeing: new guys can't enter the market. They're trying to crush Android because it's a new guy trying to get in, and they have the box of bogus patents to try to stop them. If it ends in cross-licensing all you do is prolong the situation, and ensure that the next guy that wants into the market needs a similarly large budget and patent portfolio in order to FORCE their way into the market. That's not how the system is supposed to work, it's actively detrimental to innovation and competition, and by extension actively harms people as a whole.

This is why Microsoft is destined to succeed with their Windows phone despite all the many naysayers. (There were just as many naysayers when Microsoft entered the gaming market, and repeatedly failed, at first, with their console).

They are not in the position of RIM or HP. Think about it. Every Android phone sold, except for Motorola's, includes a license fee to Microsoft. They are making a -lot- of money from Android phones. They can have a small market share with Windows 8, and failing phones for years and years, and they still make a good profit.

They can keep this up forever. They can wear down the competition. They haven't even come out with Windows 8, and it may have a slow start. It doesn't matter. Eventually they'll get it right. In the mean time, they are making a lot of money.

This is why Microsoft is destined to succeed with their Windows phone despite all the many naysayers. (There were just as many naysayers when Microsoft entered the gaming market, and repeatedly failed, at first, with their console).

They are not in the position of RIM or HP. Think about it. Every Android phone sold, except for Motorola's, includes a license fee to Microsoft. They are making a -lot- of money from Android phones. They can have a small market share with Windows 8, and failing phones for years and years, and they still make a good profit.

They can keep this up forever. They can wear down the competition. They haven't even come out with Windows 8, and it may have a slow start. It doesn't matter. Eventually they'll get it right. In the mean time, they are making a lot of money.

They're not necessarily destined to succeed, so much as they can afford not to, indefinitely. THAT is how they got into the console market. Not with a better product or anything like that, but by being able to buy up game makers, eat any losses they run into, then knowingly release a product with failure built into the design (the 360) for a 1 year advantage, eat THOSE losses, and take that lead.

In the case of phones, you're right, they've managed to extort licenses from most Android vendors for unnamed patents (they won't tell them what patents they allegedly infringe except in the SEALED settlement, or in a court of law where they're forced to), nearly all of which (if not all) are software patents and invalid by definition. So whether they succeed or not is irrelevant, because supposedly the license fees in question are the same they charge for WinMo7. The end result is basically the same thing they've had on PCs for decades: if a computer (or in this case phone) sells, Microsoft automatically gets paid for and can count a windows install, regardless of whether Windows stays on it (or was ever on it in the first place).

The strategy they used to force their way into the console market postition they have now won't work on phones, there's too many competitors, and only Apple is sufficiently locked down to be even remotely comparable. They can't do it the way they did on PC originally, again, because there's too much competition and they can't engage in as blatantly illegal behaviour as they could before their anti-trust convictions and the wrist-slap + BENEFITS they purchased instead of an actual penalty. I really think they can flat-out fail with windows8 in the mobile space (though I'm sure plenty of lemmings will buy that Razor tablet, especially if they release a World of Warcraft-branded model so as to reach the lowest common denominator), but until the patent system is fixed and all those bogus patents invalidated for what they are, Microsoft will make the same amount of money, at least from the OS license itself, since it's what they're extorting from those android vendors.

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest. Any acceptance of cross-licenses reenforces this broken system, as does large players (Microsoft, Apple) partaking in such petty activities.Its ironic that the very laws put in place to encourage innovation and benefit society are actually doing harm.This is a great time to contact your political representative to tell them that patents are broken, harmful to society and innovation!

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

If a company appears to be "standing up for what is in society's interest", then it's either PR or a coincidence. They are standing up for their own interests. In business, there are no "good guys", only "rational actors".

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

If a company appears to be "standing up for what is in society's interest", then it's either PR or a coincidence. They are standing up for their own interests. In business, there are no "good guys", only "rational actors".

In the case of google, you're absolutely right, coincidence in the most literal sense of the word. The thing is, Google's best interest generally coincides with our best interests. Further, it's in google's best interest to please us, because we're the product they sell to their customers. So sure, it's by no means altruistic, but google is generally standing up for what's good for the rest of us, if only because our best interests _are_ their best interests.

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

If a company appears to be "standing up for what is in society's interest", then it's either PR or a coincidence. They are standing up for their own interests. In business, there are no "good guys", only "rational actors".

In the case of google, you're absolutely right, coincidence in the most literal sense of the word. The thing is, Google's best interest generally coincides with our best interests. Further, it's in google's best interest to please us, because we're the product they sell to their customers. So sure, it's by no means altruistic, but google is generally standing up for what's good for the rest of us, if only because our best interests _are_ their best interests.

yes yes yes...even the hog who is best fed thinks that the man is taking care of it

Great, there's a rating system here now? So those who tell the hard, uncomfortable truth will get rated down and those preaching to the choir will get lots of upvotes? Let the popularity contests begin!

Everyone on this thread does realize that Google/Motorola is doing exactly the same thing as Microsoft, right? In fact Google bought Motorola Mobility for their patents to be able to do so. The difference is that they are using FRAND patents as their weapons, going back on their agreement not to do so.

Apple is even worse. They aren't offering the licensing option. They just want injunctions and no competing products. That will benefit society by forcing everyone to pay their ridiculous 50-100% brand markup fee.

In Google's case they aren't doing it for the benefit of society either. People need to look beneath the surface at motive. They are giving away free products based on other companies' R&D for the benefit of the ad revenue they generate on said devices, plus the consumer usage info they generate by tracking everything they do and sell to the highest bidder.

Tell me, which of the three are the evil ones again? It seems to me the devil has won when society embraces thieves and bullies because they don't want their stolen goods supply diminished or they blindly and irrationally favor the flavor of the day.

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest. Any acceptance of cross-licenses reenforces this broken system, as does large players (Microsoft, Apple) partaking in such petty activities.Its ironic that the very laws put in place to encourage innovation and benefit society are actually doing harm.This is a great time to contact your political representative to tell them that patents are broken, harmful to society and innovation!

There's several problems with this post:

First Google/Motorola, by your own definition, have not been "promoting society's best interest" with patent lawsuits over FRAND patents. They have been more flagrantly abusing the patent system then others who don't sue with FRAND patents.

Second, while many believe that patents as they stand in relation to software is less than optimal, it does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. The "all patents are bad and provide no benefits to society" line completely oversimplifies an issue filled with nuances. (I realize that Tension might not be promoting this point, but this is to Ars Readers in general).

Patents do provide benefits to society--enough benefits that Thomas Jefferson, the first head of the Patent Office, changed his mind from being opposed to patents to supporting them. Any discussion on patents must include both the benefits patents provide and the costs of patents to society. Here at Ars, it seems that more time is spent on the costs side of the equation relevant to the benefits--not that the coverage isn't good, it just seems a bit one-sided at times.

Get rid of the monopoly system. Patents and copyrights as they are used today are just too broken, and need to be thrown out. They don't "encourage innovation and creativity", they are the dead hand of monopoly stifling any new creation in red tape and a legal morass.

I would be interested to see one example of how a patent has provided benefits, or how copyright has enabled an author who would otherwise have not written. Note that William Shakespeare wasn't protected by copyright, and managed to make a fine living from his plays. He didn't make the billions that JK Rowling has made though - so does that mean Rowling's work is better? Or simply that she has a monopoly and market power?

Software hasn't been protected until recently. Any innovation problems in software? Well, there are a few now, because if you create a new program you need to make sure you're not doing something that someone else has done.

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest. Any acceptance of cross-licenses reenforces this broken system, as does large players (Microsoft, Apple) partaking in such petty activities.Its ironic that the very laws put in place to encourage innovation and benefit society are actually doing harm.This is a great time to contact your political representative to tell them that patents are broken, harmful to society and innovation!

And my problem with that is any solution that actually makes it through the sausage-making machine in Washington, D.C., will almost certainly make the problem worse, not any better, as it will be bought and paid for by the very entrenched players that are the problem here. The absolutely last thing that will ever happen will be anything, and I do mean anything, that actually foments innovation and the very start-up concerns that will challenge those entrenched interests. The problem is the political system as it exists right now. As to how to fix that, very few seem to like that answer at all....

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

If a company appears to be "standing up for what is in society's interest", then it's either PR or a coincidence. They are standing up for their own interests. In business, there are no "good guys", only "rational actors".

In the case of google, you're absolutely right, coincidence in the most literal sense of the word. The thing is, Google's best interest generally coincides with our best interests. Further, it's in google's best interest to please us, because we're the product they sell to their customers. So sure, it's by no means altruistic, but google is generally standing up for what's good for the rest of us, if only because our best interests _are_ their best interests.

yes yes yes...even the hog who is best fed thinks that the man is taking care of it

Because the man IS taking care of it. Luckily for us, he doesn't need to slaughter us to get what he wants, he needs to KEEP us happy and well fed in order to continue getting what he wants. So again, while not necessarily altruistic, Google does have our best interests in mind, if only because it's in _their_ best interest to do so.

@donrTake your clear bias and revisionist history elsewhere. You might also attempt using something called a "fact" in supporting your obvious troll argument (hint: "facts" are not those things you see or hear on FOX "News" or FOSSpatents). Further, what would you propose Google do? Turn the other cheek while they're attacked using bogus and invalid patents to eliminate competition from the market? Every "honourable" action they can take involves their death in the marketplace. You can't opt out of the patent system without opting out of business entirely. Just as you can't opt out of a war; the other side doesn't give a fuck that you don't want to fight, they're going to bomb the shit out of you anyway. Eventually the only recourse is to fight back just as hard, and hopefully make them realize that the fight just isn't worth it. In the case of patents we have another possibility, in that if/when it gets too horrific for even the sheeple and politicians to ignore anymore, they might actually do something to fix the problem.

@somniaThank you for your straw man argument. Prior to posting on the subject again, I strongly recommend actually reading the legitimate and supported points explained through this and similar threads. Ignore the idiots and one-liners, they're not worth the time. Continuing on with your strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. Nor does "well they're doing it worse" help you either (or the implication that, that makes it ok for the scumbags that started it.) As an aside, not all of the patents in question are under RAND restrictions. Further, if you actually look at the filings and the lead-up you'll see that what happened is Microsoft started using the patents WITHOUT authorization and WITHOUT negotiating terms. The commitment is only to NEGOTIATE licensing terms, there is no automatic or implicit license. Microsoft was offered one amount, and rather than negotiate AT ALL, they simply sued, while continuing to use patented materiel they were never authorized in the first place. So think on that, while it may be FRAND (though many aren't), they shouldn't have been releasing a product that used it in the first place without licensing it. Going on to argue that they already have a license automatically because it's standards-essential is equally ridiculous, and especially when they outright refuse actual negotiations. I assure you, however bad it may LOOK for the other side, Microsoft is the aggressor and the bad guy in that case (and don't even get me started on the overreach and potential illegality of an american court effectively declaring a german court's decision moot).

@decker-mageThe thing is, the system as-is COULD work if the SCOTUS would simply put their foot down, reaffirm past rulings, and put the CAFC in its place. The article the other day addresses nicely what most of us have been saying for years, that things didn't start going bad for software innovation until the CAFC came around and started trying to declare everything imaginable, including the imaginings themselves patentable. Crack down on illegal patents, and the problem is largely resolved. Sure, there will still be some valid ones left over (mostly the ones Motorola and Samsung have on hardware), but it won't be anywhere near the nightmare we see today (just as it wasn't back then.) One of the reasons you see so much noise over everything these days is because things have gotten so far out of hand everyone will throw out anything they can in an attempt to stay afloat. If that means a FRAND-encumbered patent, so be it, they're just trying to keep a bully with bogus patents from forcing them (and competition itself) out of the market. It's a horrible situation, right now, but as I said earlier, if someone is shooting you the answer is not to just stand there and take it, you eventually have to shoot back, even if that does mean sinking to their level; the difference comes when you stop once you're safe (if they don't stop, that's when they've become what they were fighting).

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

If a company appears to be "standing up for what is in society's interest", then it's either PR or a coincidence. They are standing up for their own interests. In business, there are no "good guys", only "rational actors".

In the case of google, you're absolutely right, coincidence in the most literal sense of the word. The thing is, Google's best interest generally coincides with our best interests. Further, it's in google's best interest to please us, because we're the product they sell to their customers. So sure, it's by no means altruistic, but google is generally standing up for what's good for the rest of us, if only because our best interests _are_ their best interests.

yes yes yes...even the hog who is best fed thinks that the man is taking care of it

Because the man IS taking care of it. Luckily for us, he doesn't need to slaughter us to get what he wants, he needs to KEEP us happy and well fed in order to continue getting what he wants. So again, while not necessarily altruistic, Google does have our best interests in mind, if only because it's in _their_ best interest to do so.

@donrTake your clear bias and revisionist history elsewhere. You might also attempt using something called a "fact" in supporting your obvious troll argument (hint: "facts" are not those things you see or hear on FOX "News" or FOSSpatents). Further, what would you propose Google do? Turn the other cheek while they're attacked using bogus and invalid patents to eliminate competition from the market? Every "honourable" action they can take involves their death in the marketplace. You can't opt out of the patent system without opting out of business entirely. Just as you can't opt out of a war; the other side doesn't give a fuck that you don't want to fight, they're going to bomb the shit out of you anyway. Eventually the only recourse is to fight back just as hard, and hopefully make them realize that the fight just isn't worth it. In the case of patents we have another possibility, in that if/when it gets too horrific for even the sheeple and politicians to ignore anymore, they might actually do something to fix the problem.

@somniaThank you for your straw man argument. Prior to posting on the subject again, I strongly recommend actually reading the legitimate and supported points explained through this and similar threads. Ignore the idiots and one-liners, they're not worth the time. Continuing on with your strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. Nor does "well they're doing it worse" help you either (or the implication that, that makes it ok for the scumbags that started it.) As an aside, not all of the patents in question are under RAND restrictions. Further, if you actually look at the filings and the lead-up you'll see that what happened is Microsoft started using the patents WITHOUT authorization and WITHOUT negotiating terms. The commitment is only to NEGOTIATE licensing terms, there is no automatic or implicit license. Microsoft was offered one amount, and rather than negotiate AT ALL, they simply sued, while continuing to use patented materiel they were never authorized in the first place. So think on that, while it may be FRAND (though many aren't), they shouldn't have been releasing a product that used it in the first place without licensing it. Going on to argue that they already have a license automatically because it's standards-essential is equally ridiculous, and especially when they outright refuse actual negotiations. I assure you, however bad it may LOOK for the other side, Microsoft is the aggressor and the bad guy in that case (and don't even get me started on the overreach and potential illegality of an american court effectively declaring a german court's decision moot).

@decker-mageThe thing is, the system as-is COULD work if the SCOTUS would simply put their foot down, reaffirm past rulings, and put the CAFC in its place. The article the other day addresses nicely what most of us have been saying for years, that things didn't start going bad for software innovation until the CAFC came around and started trying to declare everything imaginable, including the imaginings themselves patentable. Crack down on illegal patents, and the problem is largely resolved. Sure, there will still be some valid ones left over (mostly the ones Motorola and Samsung have on hardware), but it won't be anywhere near the nightmare we see today (just as it wasn't back then.) One of the reasons you see so much noise over everything these days is because things have gotten so far out of hand everyone will throw out anything they can in an attempt to stay afloat. If that means a FRAND-encumbered patent, so be it, they're just trying to keep a bully with bogus patents from forcing them (and competition itself) out of the market. It's a horrible situation, right now, but as I said earlier, if someone is shooting you the answer is not to just stand there and take it, you eventually have to shoot back, even if that does mean sinking to their level; the difference comes when you stop once you're safe (if they don't stop, that's when they've become what they were fighting).

Invalid patents you say sporkwitch? Like the FAT patents that has been twice challenged and twice upheld? Or the ActiveSync patents that Motorola used to legally license from Microsoft but stopped doing so? Microsoft can go slow when going after Motorola, and Motorola's suit about the H.264 patents is highly likely to end when MPEG-LA cancelled Google H.264 license and the countersuit started.

It is obvious that Microsoft is doing the war of attrition against Motorola. This patent may have failed, but the thermonuclear patents like the FAT patents and also the ActiveSync have not been launched yet. Microsoft also has a couple of hydrogen bomb-like patents in their sleeve. One of them is a patent related to a certain technology in Windows 3.1 that scared even Apple into signing a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft.

I would be interested to see one example of how a patent has provided benefits, or how copyright has enabled an author who would otherwise have not written.

easy easy,if you think that the nobel prize exists only thanks to the royalties of dynamite and ballistite, and that it has been the stimulus for a lot of researchers

sporkwitch wrote:

lortoffi wrote:

sporkwitch wrote:

In the case of google, you're absolutely right, coincidence in the most literal sense of the word. The thing is, Google's best interest generally coincides with our best interests. Further, it's in google's best interest to please us, because we're the product they sell to their customers. So sure, it's by no means altruistic, but google is generally standing up for what's good for the rest of us, if only because our best interests _are_ their best interests.

yes yes yes...even the hog who is best fed thinks that the man is taking care of it

Because the man IS taking care of it. Luckily for us, he doesn't need to slaughter us to get what he wants, he needs to KEEP us happy and well fed in order to continue getting what he wants. So again, while not necessarily altruistic, Google does have our best interests in mind, if only because it's in _their_ best interest to do so.

but you have already been slaughtered

Analysts have said that a facebook account is worth one hundred bucks. Maybe it's exagerated, let's say that your customs, internet profile and traces is worth fifty bucks to mr. Google. So If you're a man let's go to big mr. Google and ask him what you're worth so you have the cash to buy a mobile with a $15 worth operating system in it and get thirtyfive mr. Washington in your pocket.

@somniaThank you for your straw man argument. Prior to posting on the subject again, I strongly recommend actually reading the legitimate and supported points explained through this and similar threads. Ignore the idiots and one-liners, they're not worth the time. Continuing on with your strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. Nor does "well they're doing it worse" help you either (or the implication that, that makes it ok for the scumbags that started it.) As an aside, not all of the patents in question are under RAND restrictions. Further, if you actually look at the filings and the lead-up you'll see that what happened is Microsoft started using the patents WITHOUT authorization and WITHOUT negotiating terms. The commitment is only to NEGOTIATE licensing terms, there is no automatic or implicit license. Microsoft was offered one amount, and rather than negotiate AT ALL, they simply sued, while continuing to use patented materiel they were never authorized in the first place. So think on that, while it may be FRAND (though many aren't), they shouldn't have been releasing a product that used it in the first place without licensing it. Going on to argue that they already have a license automatically because it's standards-essential is equally ridiculous, and especially when they outright refuse actual negotiations. I assure you, however bad it may LOOK for the other side, Microsoft is the aggressor and the bad guy in that case (and don't even get me started on the overreach and potential illegality of an american court effectively declaring a german court's decision moot).

I never brought Microsoft into this argument. You did. I never argued over the right or wrong of Microsoft's position. You did. I never argued over the right or wrong of Google's position. You did. I never denied the Google could have legitimate grievances, nor did I ever state that Microsoft's grievances were correct.

The original poster who I was responding to stated:

Tension wrote:

I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

All I was pointing out was that Google is not a paragon of virtue in regards to patent lawsuits, because Google continues to litigate and attempt to ban products using Motorola's FRAND and non-FRAND patents. The OP is being hypocritical in holding up Google as benefiting society and thus insinuating that other companies are not benefiting society when they all do the same thing.

So I suggest that before you post next time, to think logically and actually read, and refrain from moving off topic..

Invalid patents you say sporkwitch? Like the FAT patents that has been twice challenged and twice upheld? Or the ActiveSync patents that Motorola used to legally license from Microsoft but stopped doing so? Microsoft can go slow when going after Motorola, and Motorola's suit about the H.264 patents is highly likely to end when MPEG-LA cancelled Google H.264 license and the countersuit started.

It is obvious that Microsoft is doing the war of attrition against Motorola. This patent may have failed, but the thermonuclear patents like the FAT patents and also the ActiveSync have not been launched yet. Microsoft also has a couple of hydrogen bomb-like patents in their sleeve. One of them is a patent related to a certain technology in Windows 3.1 that scared even Apple into signing a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft.

So it seems that you support FRAND patents to be misused in the courts. Do you agree if Microsoft also do the same thing against Motorola?

Yes, invalid patents, as you cannot patent software (ideas and math), and the SCOTUS has held firm on this, regardless of the Federal Circuit ignoring those decisions. Similarly, you can't patent obvious, non-novel things, and design patents cannot be used for functional aspects. The vast majority of patents with which this war is being waged are invalid by definition: they're for software, and simply saying "on a device" doesn't change that fact (the ruling those allowing "on devices of type X" to make it patentable was for a legitimate physical invention eligible for patent protection, the ruling being solely that containing software didn't invalidate the device as a whole from patent eligibility.)

As to the FAT patent (which is invalid) are easily worked around: use EXT4, though I'm honestly curious how the FAT patents are still around given the age of it (I confess I hadn't followed those as closely; did they pull a trick from big pharma's bag and make some tiny and innocuous modification to renew the term? I would assume that's the case if they're still around.)

The patents MSFT throws around are certainly more robust than Apple's (though admittedly that doesn't take much), but they absolutely are throwing around vague threats and engaging in extortion, as they always have (and have been convicted of in the past). As to Samsung folding, probably that very reason: they're more substantial, even though they are invalid, and the current end point for patent lawsuits is the same court ignoring the law and precedent to declare patents on non-statutory subject matter valid, and attempting to extend it to everything in the universe no matter how vague or broad.

Please note, however, that conrary to your claims, Microsoft does in fact extort with unnamed patents that don't get listed until the settlement is in writing and under NDA. A recent case of this was threats against Red Hat.

As to FRAND patents being used, if the other team won't even attempt the APPEARANCE of being reasonable (e.g. negotiate as required by the FRAND terms), then yes, go after them for refusing to abide by the rules, ESPECIALLY if you're being aggressed, and even more so if you're being aggressed with invalid patents. Had Microsoft actually attempted to negotiate I'd be far more sympathetic to them (though I admit a bias against them, so their suffering would please me either way). The fact is that they didn't even try to make it look like they were negotiating or being reasonable; going from first offer to lawsuit is not negotiating and it's not reasonable. If the roles were reversed and it was microsoft that made an offer and the other side answered not with a counteroffer but a lawsuit, yes, they'd be within their rights to seek an injunction, standards-essential or not. Being FRAND isn't a license for everyone to do what they want, when they want, and fight over terms in court later, it's simply an agreement to negotiate fair, non-discriminatory terms. Emphasis on "negotiate."

lortoffi wrote:

but you have already been slaughtered

Analysts have said that a facebook account is worth one hundred bucks. Maybe it's exagerated, let's say that your customs, internet profile and traces is worth fifty bucks to mr. Google. So If you're a man let's go to big mr. Google and ask him what you're worth so you have the cash to buy a mobile with a $15 worth operating system in it and get thirtyfive mr. Washington in your pocket.

You haven't been slaughtered, though, that's the thing. The food pig is fattened up and slaughtered to be eaten. We're show pigs, fed and treated well so we can continue to be a breadwinner for the farmer.

Your value is in the information you mentioned, but also in the ONGOING addition to and improvement of those records. Further, your value is in being a target for ads to be exposed to. If you're not continuing to use their services, they're not getting any new information from you (or at least not nearly as much) and your exposure to the ads they sell is far lower.

As to your request for money back, do you think the services they provide for free _are_ free? Certainly not. Google isn't a not-for-profit company, they have no obligation to send out refunds to all their users based on the revenue they've gotten from you. That remainder you're asking for is the subscription fee to their services. You use all of their services for free, they use the data they are able to collect and the exposure you get to ads, to pay for those services you're using for free. It's not a new concept, nor is it an unreasonable one. If you don't like the privacy issues (which are greatly overblown, in my opinion), which are the only thing you could even make a plausible attempt at calling "harm," there's nothing stopping you from taking your business elsewhere. That said, you'll probably have to pay for it elsewhere, otherwise they're going to do the same thing google was to cover the costs of the free services. For that matter, even the paid ones will likely be collecting and selling information (check your TOS/EULA).

At the end of the day, what's good for Google is generally what's good for the rest of us and the health of the industry as a whole. Maybe that will change some day, and if and when it does I'll take my business elsewhere (I could do it now if I wanted, I already have a server I could install a mail server on), but so far the need simply isn't there, nor does it look to be on the horizon any time soon, if ever.

somnia wrote:

sporkwitch wrote:

@somniaThank you for your straw man argument. Prior to posting on the subject again, I strongly recommend actually reading the legitimate and supported points explained through this and similar threads. Ignore the idiots and one-liners, they're not worth the time. Continuing on with your strawman argument doesn't help your credibility. Nor does "well they're doing it worse" help you either (or the implication that, that makes it ok for the scumbags that started it.) As an aside, not all of the patents in question are under RAND restrictions. Further, if you actually look at the filings and the lead-up you'll see that what happened is Microsoft started using the patents WITHOUT authorization and WITHOUT negotiating terms. The commitment is only to NEGOTIATE licensing terms, there is no automatic or implicit license. Microsoft was offered one amount, and rather than negotiate AT ALL, they simply sued, while continuing to use patented materiel they were never authorized in the first place. So think on that, while it may be FRAND (though many aren't), they shouldn't have been releasing a product that used it in the first place without licensing it. Going on to argue that they already have a license automatically because it's standards-essential is equally ridiculous, and especially when they outright refuse actual negotiations. I assure you, however bad it may LOOK for the other side, Microsoft is the aggressor and the bad guy in that case (and don't even get me started on the overreach and potential illegality of an american court effectively declaring a german court's decision moot).

I never brought Microsoft into this argument. You did. I never argued over the right or wrong of Microsoft's position. You did. I never argued over the right or wrong of Google's position. You did. I never denied the Google could have legitimate grievances, nor did I ever state that Microsoft's grievances were correct.

The original poster who I was responding to stated:

Tension wrote:

I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest.

All I was pointing out was that Google is not a paragon of virtue in regards to patent lawsuits, because Google continues to litigate and attempt to ban products using Motorola's FRAND and non-FRAND patents. The OP is being hypocritical in holding up Google as benefiting society and thus insinuating that other companies are not benefiting society when they all do the same thing.

So I suggest that before you post next time, to think logically and actually read, and refrain from moving off topic..

I'm sorry you don't realize how intimately related all those things are to your assertions in the post. Microsoft's involvement is absolutely relevant, and while in the short run a ban on Microsoft's infringing products that it won't even negotiate on isn't good for consumers, in the long run the resulting cross-licensing (or better yet, fixing of the cause: a broken patent system that allows invalid patents, namely those on software) is extremely good for consumers and the industry as a whole. Moreover, as I've already explained, google wasn't exactly left with a choice. Their choices were to either leave the industry entirely or fight back with the weapons they had. Self-defense can hardly be considered evil. At the end of the day, any negative impact on consumers (even though it would only be in the short term) can have the blame laid on MSFT's shoulders as the aggressor. You can't blame the victim for fighting back against an unprovoked war of aggression.

If you'll recall, Google fought against invalid (e.g. software) patents for years, they fought kicking and screaming (even MSFT did early on, because they were still growing and knew that software patents inhibit innovation). Now they're under attack from all sides and being dragged into a war they wanted no part in. One can't really condemn them for fighting back and defending themselves in that war, with what weapons they have available. It's no secret that this was the primary reason for buying Motorola in the first place: to gain access to the weapons necessary to defend themselves against unwarranted and illigitimate attacks from all sides, usually with illegal weapons (invalid patents on non-statutory subject matter, such as software).

Your post was a strawman in that you chose to argue against the extreme position of "eliminate all patents." You didn't argue against the real position of the majority of logical and intelligent posters that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, not removed entirely. "Eliminate all patents" only goes so far as SOFTWARE patents, because they have zero positive impact, massive negative impact, and are nothing more than math and ideas, which are non-statutory subject matter. The rest of the patent system for actual inventions works fairly well, though the term could certainly be shortened these days (production is faster and communication instantaneous). The remainder in general (such as design patents) simply need to have the rules properly enforced to keep functional or generic aspects from being patented (such as Apple's infamous D'889 design patent.)

The post you were responding to would be one of those idiots / one-liners I referred to. There was nothing really useful or constructive in his post other than "contact your representatives." The post didn't warrant a response, as he simply didn't post enough to legitimately respond to.

Further, for the reasons already mentioned, I see nothing hypocritical about the quoted statement. They were aggressed, they're defending themselves, and they're trying to do so in such a way that will hurt the aggressor severely, so as to force a peace. As stated, it may seem bad for consumers in the short term, but in the long term such an extreme goal, if successful, would almost certainly provide the necessary impetus to have things fixed, which is very much in everyone's best interest. The rest of the world may be learning and switching important work to Linux (many governments, including some in Germany, though even a handful in the US, already use Linux extensively or exclusively), but the US is still shackled to MSFT and it only seems to be getting worse. An injunction against all of Microsofts products would certainly get the attention that the system needs to see how broken things are. A similar ban on all iProducts would produce the same or similar. Short-term bad, long-term potentially VERY good. You're thinking too much in the short term, when in the long term this is more like a temporary rationing of gasoline and metals to support the war effort for the long-term safety and prosperity of the people.

Hope is not a strategy. But, I hope that Google's ownership of Motorola will be the wedge that the market needs to stop this patent madness, by mototola standing up for what is in society's interest. Any acceptance of cross-licenses reenforces this broken system, as does large players (Microsoft, Apple) partaking in such petty activities.Its ironic that the very laws put in place to encourage innovation and benefit society are actually doing harm.This is a great time to contact your political representative to tell them that patents are broken, harmful to society and innovation!

Then you should hope that Motorola, which was an early antagonist in the phone wars and has a long history of IP litigation will do a 180, and that their new owner Goggle, which bemoaned the of the Samsung-Apple case one day and filed a fresh round of lawsuits the next will drop it's suits and set a good example for the industry to follow.

Or is the "wedge" you speak of a hope that Google/Motorola will be bigger and meaner and scare the rest into submission?

Sony-ericsson didnt pay a dime to MS. Also the Microsoft tax apply only on phones sold in US. And is the reason, why manufactures sell WP - if they have WP models, the MS tax is lower. What kind of crap is this?

Yes, invalid patents, as you cannot patent software (ideas and math), and the SCOTUS has held firm on this, regardless of the Federal Circuit ignoring those decisions. Similarly, you can't patent obvious, non-novel things, and design patents cannot be used for functional aspects. The vast majority of patents with which this war is being waged are invalid by definition: they're for software, and simply saying "on a device" doesn't change that fact (the ruling those allowing "on devices of type X" to make it patentable was for a legitimate physical invention eligible for patent protection, the ruling being solely that containing software didn't invalidate the device as a whole from patent eligibility.)

yes yes yesmr. lawyer, the only problem is than the U.S. patent system laws are little more complex than you said and if maybe what you say works in a beer summit usually doesn't holds in a court. The Devil is in the details.

sporkwitch wrote:

As to the FAT patent (which is invalid) are easily worked around: use EXT4, though I'm honestly curious how the FAT patents are still around given the age of it (I confess I hadn't followed those as closely; did they pull a trick from big pharma's bag and make some tiny and innocuous modification to renew the term? I would assume that's the case if they're still around.)

uhm... maybe without FAT you can't use any shitty SD device.I dare you to find a method to store long file names in a FAT structure without breaking the compatibility and yet be fast enough to manage that would be different from the one which MSFT has created

sporkwitch wrote:

lortoffi wrote:

but you have already been slaughtered

Analysts have said that a facebook account is worth one hundred bucks. Maybe it's exagerated, let's say that your customs, internet profile and traces is worth fifty bucks to mr. Google. So If you're a man let's go to big mr. Google and ask him what you're worth so you have the cash to buy a mobile with a $15 worth operating system in it and get thirtyfive mr. Washington in your pocket.

You haven't been slaughtered, though, that's the thing. The food pig is fattened up and slaughtered to be eaten. We're show pigs, fed and treated well so we can continue to be a breadwinner for the farmer.

Your value is in the information you mentioned, but also in the ONGOING addition to and improvement of those records. Further, your value is in being a target for ads to be exposed to. If you're not continuing to use their services, they're not getting any new information from you (or at least not nearly as much) and your exposure to the ads they sell is far lower.

As to your request for money back, do you think the services they provide for free _are_ free? Certainly not. Google isn't a not-for-profit company, they have no obligation to send out refunds to all their users based on the revenue they've gotten from you. That remainder you're asking for is the subscription fee to their services. You use all of their services for free, they use the data they are able to collect and the exposure you get to ads, to pay for those services you're using for free. It's not a new concept, nor is it an unreasonable one. If you don't like the privacy issues (which are greatly overblown, in my opinion), which are the only thing you could even make a plausible attempt at calling "harm," there's nothing stopping you from taking your business elsewhere. That said, you'll probably have to pay for it elsewhere, otherwise they're going to do the same thing google was to cover the costs of the free services. For that matter, even the paid ones will likely be collecting and selling information (check your TOS/EULA).

At the end of the day, what's good for Google is generally what's good for the rest of us and the health of the industry as a whole. Maybe that will change some day, and if and when it does I'll take my business elsewhere (I could do it now if I wanted, I already have a server I could install a mail server on), but so far the need simply isn't there, nor does it look to be on the horizon any time soon, if ever.

Duh... and they told me the Reds are no more! and also I never heard of a hog who wants to be milked.Listen to me mr. I'm-in-love-with-google, the profit on us is much more than their services are worth. And only because you aren't capable to valuate yourself as much as mr.big.G is capable to do, it does not mean that mr.big.G is not defrauding you.Between honest men, if you want to get my information you'll have to pay for and then I'll pay you to get your services